I'm working of a huge sample size of 2! But there is now a consistency of falling out with the 20% that they've purposefully allowed to stay in situ. And on our case, we're operated by an employed CEO, not by the Cryne family.
I think they’ve badly misjudged BFC if they think they can make a big profit on us, unless we somehow get promoted to the Prem.
Oakwell Holdings is certainly a Cryne family operation and the Secretary is Robert Zuk. https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/05308191/officers
Think everyone needs to take a step back and not spread misinformation here. OP should be deleted because it makes very false assumptions that could be very damaging.
People are right, Holdings is the shell that had the stadium ownership within, so unless the contract was through this relating to sales proceeds for the club, it would seem to be stadia related. Breach of covenant? Failure to pay "rent" at the full agreed rate? Failure to act on an agreed clause re sale of the Cryne held stadia stake? Whatever, its not good at all.
By claiming Oakwell Holdings is the entity that ‘runs the club’ when that is completely false. It’s 100% related to the stadium.
True except that the person credited with responsibility for our recruitment policy appears to be on the opposite side of the table to the rest of the board.
It's nothing to do with the stadium. Oakwell Community Assets Ltd is the company which owns the stadium. Oakwell Holdings Ltd is the company which owns Cryne's shareholding in Barnsley Football Club Ltd.
More assumptions there. As I understand it, the council have stake in Oakwell Holdings, this could easily have come from them.
Looking at the accounts of Holdings, its the vehicle that the sale of the club went through for the Cryne family. There are debtors relating to the remaining instalments of the purchase fee (note debtors over 1 year and within, the instalments are £1m a year it would appear. So yes, it was the vehicle for holding the 50% stake of the ground, but its also the Cryne vehicle for receiving the instalments for their shareholding.
Odd one - Dane was talking up James Cryne in an interview a few weeks ago! This is quite concerning though - need Doug O'Kane and Giddings to ask some questions